Despite all this, there are some trustworthy news sources out there. You just have to know where to look.

What We Mean When We Say “Trustworthy”

Okay, let’s be candid here.

This is going to be a controversial article, no matter which news sites we suggest. Some people will disagree with the ones we choose. Others will be offended that I didn’t include their favorite media outlets.

Unfortunately, there’s no objective metric of trustworthiness. Most of the sites you’ll see listed made their way onto this list because they’ve developed a solid reputation for unbiased, not-politically-motivated reporting. Of course, reputation is something that’s always contested and in flux. It can’t be easily quantified (though I’ve cited sources where I can) and people will always have different opinions.

That being said, I stand by the assertions I make here. If you disagree, take to the comments and (civilly) tell me why. Also, note that these news sites are presented in alphabetical order and not ranked by trustworthiness.

AllSides is itself a great place to get news, as it clearly labels each story as left-leaning, center, or right-leaning. I highly recommend it when you want to see what different people are saying about the same issue. It’s eye-opening and can help you learn to pick out news bias elsewhere.

If you read a lot of news, you’ll see the AP credited all over the place. They often report stories first, and other outlets pick up those stories and run them for their own readers. AP is a non-profit, has no corporate sponsorship, and is not government-funded. The crowd-sourced bias rating at AllSides is “center,” so it generally doesn’t favor a left- or right-leaning view of the world.

While you’ll most often see AP cited in other news outlets, you can get news directly from the source.

The British Broadcasting Corporation is the largest broadcaster in the world. The British government funds the organization and so it is not beholden to corporate interests. BBC has a history of over 90 years with a well-earned reputation for accurate, unbiased reporting (and a bunch of other cool stuff like these stunning mini-sites5 Stunning Interactive Mini-Sites Made by the BBC5 Stunning Interactive Mini-Sites Made by the BBCThe BBC showcases a stunning series of digital experiments. From knowing your body better to interactive chemistry experiments, you'll see it all here.Read More). AllSides classifies it as a center news source, though U.S. citizens may find that “center” in the U.K. is notably to the left of what they’re used to.

The BBC’s reputation, however, is a strong one. It was one of the most highly rated in the Pew Research Center’s 2014 trustworthiness study, with all groups except the consistently conservative rating is as more trusted than distrusted. And even that group was relatively neutral about it.

If you want to find out what’s happening in the world, but don’t want to spend tons of time reading up on it, Brief.news is a great choice. It summarizes many of the day’s important news stories and presents them in very short, concise snippets.

Though it has a focus on politics, the Bureau’s stories will likely be of interest to people even outside the British political beat. As a non-profit, independent media organization, it has few ties to groups that might influence its political leanings. The Bureau publishes its stories in conjunction with other outlets — from both sides of the spectrum.

Like Brief.news, the Bureau isn’t listed on AllSides. But van Zandt, again, calls it among the least biased outlets. Their stated mission is to “hold power to account,” and their goal certainly comes through in their journalism.

Note: A look at their major investigations does show that many of their stories focus on issues that are generally of more interest to the left. The group prides itself on fact-based reporting, however, and does pull together a lot of data to support their claims.

Because it’s a news magazine, the format of the Christian Science Monitor is a little different from other sources on this list. They run fewer stories, but those stories tend to be very in-depth. The publication was originally founded in response to the sensationalist press of the early 1990s, and it’s maintained a strong reputation over 100 years later, maintaining its independence from mainstream media corporations.

There are two ways you can get news from CSM: through the daily edition (which gives you five daily stories each evening, along with an explanation of why they’re important) or the weekly version (which is also available in print). Unfortunately, neither are free. The daily will run you $110/year (or $11/month) and the weekly is about $30/year. You can also grab it on your Kindle.

Although AllSides states that the Economist tends to lean left, it does have a reputation for high-quality reporting. The publication “considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability.” (Though one has to wonder, if it considers itself the enemy of privilege and pomposity, why “Which MBA” and “Executive Education Navigator” are prominently featured in the main navigation.)

Throughout its history, the Economist has championed issues on both sides of the political spectrum. Today, it does tend to have a bit more of a left lean. That being said, they’re not afraid to align themselves with the party they believe best supports their ideals, which focus on free trade and free markets.

If you get your news from NPR, you’ve probably heard ProPublica mentioned. Like the AP, ProPublica is a non-profit, non-government-funded news organization. The fact that it was the first online news organization to win a Pulitzer Prize also gives it some credence (it’s gone on to win several more since then).

This is a smaller organization than some of the others mentioned on this list, but it’s absolutely worth checking out. I have a feeling they’re going to continue to grow, both in size and reputation.

Like the AP, other news outlets often cite Reuters — and that’s largely because it has a long and solid reputation for good reporting. The organization is owned by Thomson Reuters. This gives it added resistance to corporate influence. Reuters strives to use a “value-neutral approach” to guard against bias in its reporting (so much so that it has courted controversy, especially after refusing to use the word “terrorist” after the September 11 attacks in New York).

While you may not be as familiar with Reuters as some of the other outlets listed here, they have a long-standing reputation for good journalism. Their Handbook of Journalism is a great resource for anyone reporting the news, and Reuters editors hold their journalists to its tenets.

In 2016, USA Today shared the crown of widest circulation in the United States with the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. It’s read all over the world and is a major source of news for millions of people every day. The op-eds in USA Today are clearly labeled, and present a range of viewpoints (a refreshing change from the opinion pieces in some other publications).

AllSides gives the publication a center rating, although it notes that there’s been some disagreement. The fact that two blind surveys supported this rating adds weight, however. You might be used to seeing USA Today in front of your hotel room door, but if you’re looking for good news, do check their site regularly.

This is likely to be another controversial inclusion on the list, due to the ownership of WSJ by News Corporation, the mega-media conglomeration helmed by the Murdoch family. Rupert Murdoch has developed a reputation for being ruthlessly conservative and using his considerable media power for political influence. Some of his news outlets also have a deservedly terrible reputation.

The Journal, however, has consistently ranked as highly trusted in the United States, even after its takeover by News Corp. AllSides gives it a strong center rating, and it was the only outlet more trusted than distrusted by all groups in the 2014 Pew survey. It’s important to note that the news and opinions section of WSJ have a strictly enforced separation, and that op-eds tend to have a very strong right-leaning bias. Despite that, the news (especially financial newsThe 6 Best Sites for Keeping Up-to-Date With Financial NewsThe 6 Best Sites for Keeping Up-to-Date With Financial NewsKeeping on top of financial news is a necessary chore for almost everyone. We take a look at six of the best sites to keep you abreast of breaking stories.Read More) published by the outlet is of high quality.

If you’re interested in media bias — beyond finding media that’s minimally biased — you should definitely check out FAIR. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is a watchdog group that writes about media bias. They publish a number of remarkably stinging critiques of current news practices.

AllSides gives them a provisional center rating. On their homepage at the time of this writing are articles that critique CNN, the AP, and Roger Ailes (founder of Fox News). They don’t hold back, and no one is safe from their rhetoric.

Reporters and editors also have their own biases, so it’s impossible to find 100 percent unbiased news — and that probably wouldn’t be very fun to read anyway. But, in general, you can trust what you read from these outlets.

These days, it seems that pro-Trump conservatives aka Putin-is-a-friend GOP (Good on Putin) AmeriKKKans are the main ones accusing mainstream media of bias. Like the regime running the PRC, the cult of Mao/Xi terrorist regime, who accuse AP, Reuters, BBC, and any others that report on their thieving and human rights atrocities, the right claims bias when any media, including the few Fox News reporters expose Trump's lies, cozying up to and failure to condemn authoritarian leaders, and other wrong-doing. They want to read only praise and confirmation of Trump's lies. Fair-minded honest-hearted people just want the truth. When there is something good about this administration to report, we'll accept it. I subscribe to RAW, The Daily Beast, China Digital Times and Globalist, and watch MSNBC and CNN, plus China Uncensored, who all believe that exposing evil regimes is not biased reporting.

I was genuinely very keen to read this article, to find a replacement to the BBC which has clearly taken a right wing leaning to the news over the last couple of years, only to find that it ranked number two and you consider it left wing!

Toronto Star fights wonderful fights for mankind's good. The Toronto Star's investigative team was nominated for putting "its money ... where its reporters are: digging compelling, provocative, and yes, socially important (remember that concept?) stories out of data, out of abuses and injustices, out of the rubble of post-earthquake Haiti, and out of surprising places like sports."

The Journalism Integrity Award was established in 2009 to honour journalists or organizations that demonstrate a positive impact on the quality of journalism in Canada. The inaugural winners were the employees of the CHEK-TV newsroom in Victoria, BC, who bought the station and operated it as a local, independent news station dedicated to improving the quality and quantity of local news. The jury selects the winner from nominations submitted by J-Source readers and contributors.

Thank you for writing this! I do want to respectfully dispute WSJ being on the list after happening to read a couple of pieces today about journalists actually quitting because of its conservative bias. I don't mind if a news source leans a little bit to the right or left; as you said it's difficult to entirely escape bias. Here's one of the articles I read:

"AllSides classifies it as a center news source, though U.S. citizens may find that “center” in the U.K. is notably to the left of what they’re used to."

I've never really thought about that, but yeah, that's very interesting. I find lots of people criticise the BBC for being more left-wing than it should be, but I've found (certainly since John Whittingdale's threats on the license fee) it's more right-wing at the moment. Which definitely isn't good. But that's what the media is like: no matter how unbiased something is supposed to be, politics *will* creep in. We just have to accept that. And I will defend the BBC because I think it's a wonderful organisation.

Yeah, and some outlets do tend to go back and forth depending on various factors. And because the political climate can often have a notable effect on public broadcasting, that's going to be the case. I'm not sure if having a bias that can be swayed is better than having a bias that tends to stay stable . . . I suppose it depends on your political views!

I think wrt the BBC, their problem is that their bias is trivial, rather than left/liberal. It's like they one day woke up and decided to forget the very basics of journalism. Instead, they tend to distract from the main points on topics they disapprove of. Very odd.

IMO any organization (and I'm pretty much referring to them all here) that republishes press releases with little to no oversight is nothing more than a PR mouthpiece. For newspapers, that PR might come from corporations. For state run broadcasters, it's bound to be government, whatever the broadcasters' employees' personal political leanings.

If you're willing to put in the time and effort it takes to do that, it's definitely a good way to see if a particular news source is biased. It's not always easy, though. Which is why we have news organizations in the first place! :-)

They have censorship!!!
There is no mainstream media which can claim trustworthy. All the publications you mentioned are with a strong bias and do not accept open dialog! See more what people like Noam Chomsky have to say about them... Make your research and use your own brains to distinguish between sources!
See how they use terms like "terrorism" and "conspiracy theory". Don't orientate with the majority but with what makes sense and if you understand physics or whatever science, think and question things in spite of the majority! Then you will see how bias those sites are and how stupid some official theories can be! And if one site/publication doesn't respect the elementary logic, and rules of a decent debate, cut them of the list!
All publications mentioned do not respect those rules!

I mean, they don't answer your comments... If you want to know more about where these publications are, I recommend the book : "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" by Richard E. Sprague! You will see what I mean!
Enjoy searching with an open mind!

Canadian Broadcasting Station (CBC/Radio-Canada) follows BBC inheritance with great unbias journalism. Although I consider it centered , it's maybe a bit on the left for american. It can't hurts to know what your closest neighbor is thinking?.

I'm not familiar with CBC news, but I'll have to check it out! I think you're right that it would seem a little left here in the States, but on an international scale, I believe that it's probably pretty central.

Canadian Broadcasting Station (CBS/Radio-Canada) follows BBC inheritance with great journalism. It's mostly centered, but maybe a bit on the left for american. It's a public service so it's not under corporate influence.

I've heard good things about Politico and FiveThirtyEight. AllSides has them both listed as center, which is definitely a good sign. Using loaded words is something to watch out for, but that's also up for debate; what one person considers a "loaded" word might not seem out of the ordinary for another person. Thanks for posting a link to some evidence for your claim—it's hugely appreciated!

Do you have objective evidence of that? Any studies, surveys, anything like that? Another commenter thinks it's been moving to the conservative side, so I'd love to see if anyone has done some research on this topic.

Many of these I am not as familiar with, so I can't comment; there a few that I have personally noticed bias on multiple occasions. Unfortunately, I think both sides like to have their views reinforced; therefore, bias is not only accepted, it is preferred.
When we hear facts that counter to what we believe, we get angry or dismiss them outright.

Because of where I work, I am forced to watch an alternative news source. This allows me to see another side and decide how credible each position is. I have been forced to one conclusion.
Politicians on both side are full of S&$#!! They all lie, they all say what you want to hear, you are a fool if you think your side is telling the truth. 80% of americans are more closely aligned than we think, but the party extremes keep us looking at eachother, so we don't look at them!

Which alternative news source do you watch? I'd be curious to check it out. I agree with you that we generally prefer biased news to reinforce our views; it's just like the echo chamber effect on social media. It's much easier to listen to people you agree with.

By "Alternative", I mean alternative to my "leanings". I am a fiscal conservative and social hybrid (Libertarian/Christian). I listen to some talk radio and watch CNN. In both cases, I find they completely dismiss the shortcomings of their own party (preference) and attack similar behaviors in the opposition. The truth is usually somewhere in between.

Two examples; Obama not being a citizen and Trum urinating on Russian prostitutes. I try to wait a few months before believing anything, because it usually isn't true.

Replacement suggestions? I have to be honest. There is not a single news sources today that is not biased. This is why I monitory both sides, and then do my own homework on things that matter most.
There is always an agenda behind the way news are reported today. Journalism is long dead.

Thanks for posting those links! When I ask people for evidence, they usually just ignore it. Because the MRC is pretty openly conservatively biased, I'm just going to skip that one (the language and evidence used in the piece speak for themselves). The Forbes article, however, is interesting. I think the title of that piece is misleading, because the study cited actually doesn't say anything about the ideology of the outlets. It only makes a point about their connections on Twitter, which—as the author points out—likely has more to do with the perception of that particular news source than the actual content of its programming. And I do believe that NPR is viewed more liberally than it actually is. So that fits well with the study. Also, this study was published in 2011, and the blind survey listed on AllSides is more recent by two years, so it's possible that some things have changed.

John Smith

May 30, 2017 at 1:36 am

I responded explaining why, but it seems that comment was caught up in your spam fitlers. I had links to couple of sources.

@Dann Albright
Thanks for the update
Well, you look at titles and then judge the article. If you look carefully, MRC, while certainly a conservative source, the maintain objectivity in such studies. The scientific criteria and sampling, almost identical to Forbes's. So it is not that different.
The argument that this is an old study and things may have changed today is almost not valid.
Are you aware of any publication or news source of that size changing partisanship? There is no such thing. They actually double down on what they are trying to convince their readers to follow or believe.
One thing to note, people accused Forbes of being biased to the right too. So if we are going to dismiss them too, that means nothing will convince anyone anymore.
I would suggest that you examine the MRC's article and if you have anything against it, please feel free to share here or in a new article. I read both sides of the isle, and yes, I am a conservative, but always listen to the opposing opinion and then dismiss the invalid claims.

Keith

May 29, 2017 at 9:28 pm

@John Smith, you obviously didn't read or understand Dann's explanation for including NPR: "This is likely to be a controversial one, as public broadcasting is strongly associated with liberal political views in the United States. However, NPR has a reputation for journalistic excellence. They’re invested in continued government funding, but they remain free of corporate bias. AllSides rates them as center, with a blind survey, third-party data, community feedback, and secondary research supporting their classification."

An article or author doesn't lose credibility just because one happens to disagree with them. Credibility is more about facts than opinions. This article is clearly an opinion piece, although Dann does a good job of supporting his opinion with facts. And you can disagree with one thing a person says without disbelieving everything else they say. You must be a very lonely person if you stop listening to everyone you disagree with!

Dude, who urinated in your cornflakes?
You seem very "offended" by my one line comment, drawing a 2 run-n paragraphs borderline psychotic rant from you.
Let me see if I can dumb this down to explain it to you.

You need to read carefully before you judge others based on your failure in reading comprehension. That way you also spare the rest of us another run-on rant, your self assumed higher moral ground and your attitude.

Here is why you failed, miserably.
My words could not be simpler "then the article has lost credibility.", which clearly saying the ARTICLE lost credibility.

Your read that as with your long rant
"An article or author doesn't lose credibility just because one happens to disagree with them"
Where and when did I even mention that the author lost credibility?
You can make mistakes, post articles that not credible, that does not make the author not credible.
Unlike you, we don't judge others, we post opinions.
And contrary to what you have been led to believe in, there are facts that one can use to show why an article loses credibility, and it is obvious you missed those facts.

"You must be a very lonely person if you stop listening to everyone you disagree with!"

This line alone in your borderline psychotic rant shows that you are a waste of time to argue with. You are not interested in arguing like adults, you just throw random accusations and judge people you never met before, although your writing style and rhetoric sound familiar, seen that from another person here, but since MUO does not verify who is posting what you could be anyone.

I suggest you see someone about your arguing style and apparent anger issues that I detect in your comment. Maybe hanging with your family on this long weekend instead of trying to pick up fights with random strangers commenting on random sites.

I like how you wrote an unnecessarily long response to a comment in which you complained about the initial comment being too long, and yet you also managed to do so without actually making an argument.

John Smith

May 30, 2017 at 3:16 am

@Andrew
"I like how you wrote an unnecessarily long response to a comment in which you complained about the initial comment being too long, and yet you also managed to do so without actually making an argument."

If you would stop sock puppeting and use one account. I can respond once and for all. Every time I put you in your place, some random account comes out of the woodwork and starts attacking me.
Actually I debunked his/your psychotic rant, not to mention his long psychotic rant was a response to a one line observation from me, but as usual, trolls like you lie to get attention, and facts go flying over your head.

You seem to be agreeing that the inclusion of NPR in this article casts a negative light on the entire piece, but you haven't said why. I'm curious to find out why you think that, despite the quantitative evidence that I supplied.

IMO, ever since the run-up to the 2017 U.S. Presidential election, “fake news” has become a sexy buzzword used by quite a few politicians, with several organizations directing now resources toward understanding and fighting it. (Even MUO is doing its part to combat such)

I've remained silent on this issue here mostly because of the charged political times we live and I have no desire to enter into a drawn out "twitter" political debate and controversy. (Having said that I now begin to post what may undoubtedly lead to that very same thing)

Let's face it, social media has completely transformed the way we create, distribute and consume news. In recent times, it has become a driving force in shaping political beliefs as well as both online and offline behavior. In our persuit of "likes" and "clicks" (yes Facebook, we're looking at you) we have seen journalistic integrity and deep research take a back seat and just like online advertising sites some news houses now present us with "clickbait"

Our social media has become somewhat of an echo chamber in which the content, pages and even people that we engage with in the online space increasingly serve to confirm our own personal biases and belief systems.

"But perhaps what’s even more interesting is how social media events are increasingly shaping the mainstream news agenda. You need to look no further than Donald Trump’s strategic use of Twitter throughout last year’s US presidential election to divert and shape the news to suit his own agenda." (That's a quote from Telsyte’s Australian Digital Consumer Study, like I've said...I've been thinking about this topic for some time now)

Can anyone remember a lawsuit against Trump University that was recently settled in November? Significant coverage of the 25 million fraud case settlement was overshadowed by the media feeding frenzy that ensued following a tweet by President Trump demanding that the cast of the Broadway show Hamilton, apologize to Mike Pence after he was booed at a performance that same night. I can't recall one single station (save and except the BBC, which most average Americans either don't know exists or don't watch period) putting the settlement front and center. You see how ONE man shaped news output? Now imagine how many other people and businesses engage in a similar strategy to Trump, yet we just don’t see it.

As news stories continue to unfold in real-time, media outlets have a "duty-of-care" (a British law tort term) to uphold journalistic integrity at all costs. However in a 24/7 news cycle and the pursuit for viewers has meant sufficient research and fact checking are often forgotten in favor of clickbait articles or titillating, salacious stories. President Trump has about 46 million followers across his personal Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts, his influence travels globally and is often a source of news that’s influential enough to drive and sway hundreds of pieces of media stories (real and fake) through one post. President Obama in 2009 had about 80 million followers, and that was "way-back-when"...maybe we should blame him for showing up and coming politicians how to use the muscle of social media? or would THAT be fake-news?

Whether intentional or not, foreseen or not, social media has moved far beyond a platform that was initially intended to facilitate communication and networking between users, it has become a way to filter and reinforce out own echo chamber.

I try to the echo-chamber by attempting (forcing myself) to not listen to the same news channel every day, nor the same radio station (that's hard) or simply just reading the headline (that how some folks get their news believe it or not). I try to change it up a bit, step outside of my view-point and consider something new, it don't always work but it's a start,...well, I had lots more to say but don't want some to post TLDR...
(British humor, or maybe not:...I hear that Boris Johnson is making a motion in British Parliment to have the Borough of Lewisham become and independent European country and elect himself as Prime Minister for life...FAKENEWS...) lol

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here—social media (and the internet age at large) has made a big difference in how we consume news. The same could be said about when we switched from written to TV news, too. Changes in media always affect how we consume our news, and media are changing all the time. How we deal with that is—obviously—a larger question. Clickbait certainly isn't helping, but by trying to point out to people which news outlets are trustworthy (or at least more so than others), I hope to help people develop some resistance to that. The popularity of highly biased, extremely sensational news sources shows that we have a long way to go, but maybe there's hope.

Dann, one of your comments makes sense, is right on target, and it gives me greater confidence in the rest of what you've written. You say "[u]nfortunately, there’s no objective metric of trustworthiness. Most of the sites you’ll see listed made their way onto this list because they’ve developed a solid reputation for unbiased, not-politically-motivated reporting. Of course, reputation is something that’s always contested and in flux. It can’t be easily quantified (though I’ve cited sources where I can) and people will always have different opinions." No one with a living brain cell is completely unbiased, however much we may strive and claim to be. Thanks for being upfront and honest about your criteria; it looks like you're making a best-effort attempt to be as objective as possible and I salute you for that.

As an ex-pat US citizen for many years I've relied on BBC and The Economist for international news, and for an outsider's, reasonably objective view of US events. Every source I take with a grain (or more) of salt, and I try to balance sources to sort of "average out" what I hope to be something fairly close to the truth. "Trust no one" still works for me.

I expected to only receive childish vitriol in response to this article, so I very much appreciate your comment! I really did try to be as objective as possible. I'm happy with the list I came up with, even though I know that some people will hit the comments section hard. The BBC is a great source of info on US events, as you mentioned, and trying to balance your news intake is a great idea. That's why I frequent AllSides—I read articles from both sides to see what people are saying, and then try to draw my own conclusions. And yeah, "trust no one" won't really let you down when it comes to news. :-)